alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles Sealey, Petitioner, v Norman Bezio, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 799]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a routine pat frisk, a package containing a green leafy substance was retrieved by correction officers after it fell from the front pocket of petitioner’s pants. Petitioner struggled with the correction officers who were conducting the pat frisk, refused orders to stop resisting and attempted to strike the officers. Other officers responded to the scene and a physical altercation ensued during which petitioner obtained one officer’s baton and began hitting another officer with it until he was eventually subdued and placed in mechanical restraints. A test of the substance taken from petitioner revealed that it was marihuana. As a result of the foregoing, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, engaging in violent conduct, refusing a direct order, using a weapon and possessing a controlled substance. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the deter*1578mination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, related documentation, testimony of the many correction officers involved in the incident and petitioner’s admission to possessing marihuana provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Mance v Prack,*89 AD3d 1363 [2011]; *Matter of Owens v Fischer,*75 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2010]). To the extent that petitioner gave contrary testimony and maintained that he was assaulted by correction officers, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Davis v Prack,*90 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2011]; *Matter of Argentieri v Fischer,*87 AD3d 1242, 1242 [2011]). Furthermore, given the gravity of petitioner’s conduct, we do not find that the penalty is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Phipps v Fischer,*82 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2011]; *Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 78*AD3d 1341, 1342 [2010]).

Rose, J.E, Malone Jr., Kavanagh, Garry and Egan Jr. JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
# C_2021035EN.01004601.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Ace of spades v EUIPO — Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne PRESTIGE)

(Case T-622/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark JC JEAN CALL Champagne PRESTIGE - Earlier three-dimensional EU trade marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany), Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 (Case R 3/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ace of spades Holdings and Messrs Krupp and Borrmann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 June 2019 (Case R 3/2019-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Ace of spades Holdings LLC and rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 June 2019 (Case R 3/2019-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Ace of spades Holdings LLC and rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
[No. 39269-7-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joseph MacDonald Vaux, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-8-02956-6, Richard A. Jones, J., entered August 27, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of


Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Richard L. Bergmark, Chief Financial Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Report").





I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: February 19, 2010
/s/ Richard L. BergmarkName: Richard L. BergmarkTitle: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021452EN.01003802.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/38

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2021 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-881/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Grant agreements - Set-off of claims - Identification of the defendant - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 452/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova, L. Mantl, and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission reimburse the eligible costs incurred by the applicant, first, between August 2015 and April 2016 and, secondly, during the period of the preliminary insolvency proceedings, namely EUR 1 680 681,82, plus interest of EUR 76 552,60, in respect of the grant agreements awarded under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities and the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 975 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 

of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the participation of physical therapists in the National 

Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Physical Therapist 

5 Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 975 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; PARTICIPA2 TION OF PHYSICAL THERAPISTS IN LOAN RE3 PAYMENT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) MISSION OF CORPS; DEFINITION OF PRIMARY

5 HEALTH SERVICES.—Section 331(a)(3)(D) of the Public 

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)(D)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘or mental health,’’ and inserting ‘‘mental 

8 health, or physical therapy,’’. 

9 (b) LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.—Section 338B of 

10 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l–1) is 

11 amended— 

12 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘and physi13 cian assistants;’’ and inserting ‘‘physician assistants, 

14 and physical therapists;’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (b)(1)— 

16 (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting be17 fore the semicolon at the end the following: ‘‘, 

18 or have a doctoral or master’s degree in phys19 ical therapy’’; 

20 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 

21 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘mental health,’’; and 

22 (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting 

23 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘dentistry,’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Young Innovations, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

 

|                       |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Alfred E. Brennan, Jr. |   |  
Alfred E. Brennan, Jr., Chairman, Director and

Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.

 

 
Arthur L. Herbst, Jr., 

President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 11, 2009

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

 

 

  |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDEN TIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRE CEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Wayne Albeon Scott, Jr., Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000067

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT O F APPEALS

Appeal From Florence County Howard King, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2017-MO-010 Heard May 2, 2017 – Filed May 31, 2017

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY

GRANTED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General J. Robert Bol choz, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all ofColumbia; Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted Wayne Albeon Scott, Jr.'s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision affirming t he circuit court's refusal to grant Scott immunity under the South Carolina Protec tion of Persons and Property Act. State v. Scott , Op. No. 2015-UP-513 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Nov. 12, 2015). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, FEW, JJ., and Acting Justice DeAndrea Benjamin, concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-169926, 333-150097, 333-136316, 333-100900 and 333-27977) of our reports dated March 11, 2011 related to the consolidated financial statements of MedallionFinancial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010 and related to the selected financial ratios and other data for each of the five years inthe five-year period ended December 31, 2010, and on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 and our report dated March 11, 2011 related to the financial statements of Medallion Bank as ofDecember 31, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

WeiserMazars LLP 

New York, New York

March 11, 2011
##### 



Exhibit 10.105 March 3, 2005 STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Attn: Kevin Brennan
President
XRG, Inc.
5301 Cypress Street, Suite 111
Tampa, FL 33607 Re:
    
    Pacific Business Funding/Capco Financial Company Credit Facility
 Dear Kevin: This letter will serve as an invoice and as an amendment to the fee agreement between Oberon
Securities LLC (Oberon) and XRG, Inc. (XRG) only as it pertains to the debt financing provided
by Pacific Business Funding/Capco Financial Company (Facility): Cash RetainerCapital Fee for Facility
    
    $120,000 (3% of$4.0mm)
 Please wire funds to the following Oberon account: Oberon Securities, LLC
Bank of New York
A/C# 630-2306921
Swift# IRVTUS3N
ABA# 021000018 Bank of New York
260 Madison Avenue
NY,NY 10016 In addition to the cash fee above, Oberon shall receive fees according the following schedule: A cash fee of$30,000 at the time that the balance owed under the Facility exceeds $4.000,000
for the first time; a cash fee of $30,000 at the time that the balance owed under the Facility
exceeds $5,000,000 for the first time; a cash fee of $30,000 at the time that the balance owed
under the Facility exceeds $6,000,000 for the first time; a cash fee of $30,000 at the time that
the balance owed under the Facility exceeds $7,000,000 for the first time; a cash fee of $30,000 at
the time that the balance owed under the Facility exceeds $8,000,000 for the first time; a cash fee
of $30,000 at the time that the balance owed under the Facility exceeds $9,000,000 for the first
time. For purposed of clarification, if at any given time the balance owed under the Facility is
$8,500,000, XRG will have paid Oberon a total of $270,000 in cash fees.




---



##### 



In the event that the facility is extended above $10,000,000, Oberon shall be due a fee of 3%
of the extended amount, payable at the time of the extension. XRG will wire the initial fee of$120,000 to Oberon. XRG specifically authorizes Pacific
Business Funding/Capco Financial Company to wire all additional fees directly to Oberon as the
conditions are fulfilled as described above. In addition, XRG will issue Oberon 55,555 warrants (3-year, $2.16/share strike price) in the
name of Oberon Securities, LLC at the address below. If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please return the executed copy of this letter and
wire the funds as described above, whereupon this letter shall become effective as of the date
hereof. Sincerely,Oberon
Securities, LCBy:
 AGREED TO:
XRG, Inc. By:Kevin BrennanCEO
 2
**Exhibit 31.1****Section 302 Certification**I, Terrance D. Paul, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Renaissance Learning, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules
# C_2019182EN.01003901.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/39

---

Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Apple v EUIPO (Styluses)

(Case T-212/19)

(2019/C 182/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Application for registration No 3012707 -0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in Case R 2533/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
#### BENNETT, Appellant, v. BOWES, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Norman W. Bennett, as administrator, etc., against Matthew P. Bowes.

No opinion. Order modified, so as to strike out the leave therein granted to move for return of the $51 paid, and to authorize the defendant, within 20 days after service of this order, to serve an answer, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick WALKER, a/k/a “Rudd”, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-5125.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2009.

Leena Alam, Phil Pinnell, Robert Thames Raley, United States Attorney’s Office, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*231Roderick Walker, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

We must decide whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) to Roderick Walker, a federal prisoner, in order to permit his appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A COA will not issue unless the applicant makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, Mr. Walker must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted). Our inquiry does not require a “full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of [the applicant’s] claims,” but, rather, “an overview of the claims ... and a general assessment of their merits.” *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

Mr. Walker is a *pro se*litigant, so we construe his pleadings and other papers with solicitude. *Van Deelen v. Johnson,*497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007). Before the district court, he raised some eighteen separate claims of ineffective assistance on the part of both his trial and appellate lawyers.1 In an exhaustive and thoughtful thirty-six page opinion, the district court rejected each of Mr. Walker’s constitutional claims. After reviewing the record, we conclude no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the district court’s disposition. Accordingly, and for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we deny Mr. Walker’s application for a COA. The appeal is dismissed.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. Mr. Walker also seeks to raise new claims before us, but we will not entertain arguments not presented to the district court in the first instance. *Dockins v. Hines,*374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir.2004).
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory J. Dawson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                              ___/s/ Gregory J. Dawson____
                              Chief Financial Officer

                              March 28, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



97